Print
Share page with AddThis

15 Highland Street

Upload file: 
PDF icon boa_15_highland_street_-_stamped_decision.pdf

April 28, 2020
[filed with the City Clerk April 30, 2020]
Decision
City of Salem Board of Appeals

 

Petition of SCOTT & HEATHER MURRAY for a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a rear first and second story addition within the required side yard setback at 15 HIGHLAND STREET (Map 17, Lot 152) (R1 Zoning District).

 

A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on April 1, 2020 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11 and closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Peter A. Copelas, Mike Duffy (Chair), Carly McClain, Rosa Ordaz, Steven Smalley, and Paul Viccica. Board member Jimmy Tsitsinos was absent.

 

The petitioner seeks a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a rear first and second story addition within the required side yard setback.

 

Statements of Fact:

  1. In the petition date-stamped February 27, 2020, the petitioner requested a special permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a rear first and second story addition within the required side yard setback at 15 Highland Street.
  2. 15 Highland Street is owned by Scott and Heather Murray.
  3. 15 Highland Street is a single-family home in the Residential One-Family (R1) zoning district. The one-family residential use is allowed in the R1 district.
  4. The property is currently nonconforming to minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum depth of front yard, and minimum depth of side yard (one side – the south side of the property, or the right side if looking from Highland Street).
  5. The proposal is to construct a rear first and second story addition.
  6. Per the Petition Form submitted to the Board, on the first floor, this will be a “7’8”x4’ addition... to enlarge the existing ½ bath”; the second-floor addition would include a “master bath on top of the existing ½ bath and proposed 7’8”x4’ addition.”
  7. This action would be on the side of the building that currently infringes on the side yard setback and would be within the required 10’ side yard setback.
  8. Under this proposal, the footprint of the structure would only expand towards the rear lot line, so the existing side yard setback of approximately 2 feet will not be further reduced. The overall height of the building would not increase under this proposal.
  9. The requested relief, if granted, would allow the petitioner to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a rear first and second story addition within the required side yard setback.
  10. The April 1, 2020 meeting of the Board of Appeals was held remotely, via the online platform Zoom.
  11. At the April 1, 2020 meeting of the Board of Appeals, architect Veronica Hobson, representing petitioners Scott and Heather Murray, discussed the petition. Ms. Hobson explained that the existing structure exceeds the front yard setback by ten feet and the right side setback by eight feet, and sits on a lot with less than the required area and width. She states that the proposed addition would exceed the right side setback by the same eight feet; it would not further infringe on that setback.
  12. At the April 1, 2020 meeting of the Board of Appeals, planner Brennan Corriston noted that the petitioner submitted an updated survey. Ms. Hobson notes that she realized that the survey that was originally submitted was missing the leg of the addition on the left. This was corrected and the corrected survey was submitted earlier that day.
  13. At the April 1, 2020 public hearing, Ms. Hobson noted that the proposal would expand an existing half bath and add a laundry closet on the first floor and would add a master bathroom on the second floor. The proposal would add a net 33 square feet to the first floor and 69 square feet to the second floor. Ms. Hobson presented and discussed elevations as well as photos of existing conditions on the site and photos of nearby buildings. She stated the addition will be blocked by trees seasonally. She noted the distance to the neighboring structure and stated that they will not be crowding the neighbor.
  14. At the April 1, 2020 public hearing, one (1) member of the public spoke in favor of the petition and no (0) members of the public spoke in opposition.
  15. At the April 1, 2020 public hearing, Chair Duffy discussed the special permit criteria. He noted that this is a simple and relatively minor change; the property will not expand into the side yard setback much, only going above what is existing. 

 

The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition, including the application narrative and plans, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance:

 

Special Permit Findings:

The Board finds that the proposed nonconforming structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.

  1. Social, economic, or community needs are served by the proposal.
  2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading: No negative impact is anticipated.
  3. Existing utilities and other public services are adequate for the proposal.
  4. Impacts on the natural environment, including drainage: No negative impacts are anticipated.
  5. Neighborhood character: The proposal appears to be in keeping with the neighborhood character.
  6. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment: Providing this additional amenity for the property may positively impact the value of the property, thus positively impacting the City tax base.

On the basis of the above statements of fact and findings, the Salem Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor (Paul Viccica, Peter A. Copelas, Rosa Ordaz, Steven Smalley, and Mike Duffy (Chair)) and none (0) opposed to grant the requested Special Permit per Section 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to expand a nonconforming single-family home by adding a rear first and second story addition within the required side yard setback at 15 Highland Street, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:

 

Standard Conditions:

  1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
  2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner.
  3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
  4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
  5. Exterior finishes of the new construction shall be in harmony with the existing structure.
  6. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 
  7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
  8. All construction shall be done per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by this Board. No change, extension, material corrections, additions, substitutions, alterations, and/or modification to an approval by this Board shall be permitted without the approval of this Board, unless such change has been deemed a minor field change by the Building Commissioner in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Appeals.

 

Mike Duffy, Chair
Board of Appeals

 

 

A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK.

 

Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.